Some excellent discussion last night: thank you!
As I said, we really didn't get to cover the issue of sexual complementarity (which has come to prominence both as part of the Theology of the Body and as an explanation as to why the family should take a particular shape (ie one woman; one man) ). We'll have a go at that next week!
One element that did figure quite prominently in last night's discussion was this idea of a 'hermeneutic of continuity'. (This phrase is usually attributed to Benedict XVI in his Christmas address 22 December 2005. (Link here.)) In short, it is possible to understand some twentieth century developments in Catholic theology (particularly Vatican II) in two ways: either interpreting them as a radical change from the past ( a hermeneutics (ie way of interpreting) of rupture) or in continuity with past theology.
It should be clear by now that I'm a hermeneutic of continuity man myself!! So, in my understanding, Catholic theology has simply developed and deepened through events such as Vatican II, rather than radically changed. But, as one very good question put it last night: why does this matter? Clearly some things have changed: we don't burn Protestants any more (!). So why the desperation to cling onto a narrative of continuity rather than perhaps adopt a more honest admission that there has been a radical change?
Part of my answer to this would be that it does depend on the precise meaning of 'radical' change. In one sense, there has been great change -that's clear. So would it matter if we adopted a hermeneutic of rupture? I'd make two replies.
The first -and perhaps least important- is that it would change the way we used (say) pre-Vatican II material. Rather than going (say) to a thirteenth century Doctor of the Church such as Aquinas and expecting to find there the same theology as we have now, we would have to go without that assumption. I think that certainly would be a profound change both in the way we used materials and also in the attitude we have to the (intellectual) communion we have with those Doctors. But to accept that is of course not to answer the objection that such a change is both necessary and welcome...
The second -and more important reply- is that it would alter the nature of the teaching authority of the Church. There is no evading the fact that the Catholic Church has -and still does- make very strong claims for itself. Here, for example, are the relevant paragraphs from the Catechism on the teaching authority of the Church on morality (link here):
2032 The Church, the "pillar and bulwark of the truth," "has received this solemn command of Christ from the apostles to announce the saving truth." "To the Church belongs the right always and everywhere to announce moral principles, including those pertaining to the social order, and to make judgments on any human affairs to the extent that they are required by the fundamental rights of the human person or the salvation of souls."
2033 The Magisterium of the Pastors of the Church in moral matters is ordinarily exercised in catechesis and preaching, with the help of the works of theologians and spiritual authors. Thus from generation to generation, under the aegis and vigilance of the pastors, the "deposit" of Christian moral teaching has been handed on, a deposit composed of a characteristic body of rules, commandments, and virtues proceeding from faith in Christ and animated by charity. Alongside the Creed and the Our Father, the basis for this catechesis has traditionally been the Decalogue which sets out the principles of moral life valid for all men.
2034 The Roman Pontiff and the bishops are "authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach the faith to the people entrusted to them, the faith to be believed and put into practice." The ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Pope and the bishops in communion with him teach the faithful the truth to believe, the charity to practice, the beatitude to hope for.
2035 The supreme degree of participation in the authority of Christ is ensured by the charism of infallibility. This infallibility extends as far as does the deposit of divine Revelation; it also extends to all those elements of doctrine, including morals, without which the saving truths of the faith cannot be preserved, explained, or observed.
2036 The authority of the Magisterium extends also to the specific precepts of the natural law, because their observance, demanded by the Creator, is necessary for salvation. In recalling the prescriptions of the natural law, the Magisterium of the Church exercises an essential part of its prophetic office of proclaiming to men what they truly are and reminding them of what they should be before God.
2037 The law of God entrusted to the Church is taught to the faithful as the way of life and truth. the faithful therefore have the right to be instructed in the divine saving precepts that purify judgment and, with grace, heal wounded human reason. They have the duty of observing the constitutions and decrees conveyed by the legitimate authority of the Church. Even if they concern disciplinary matters, these determinations call for docility in charity.
In essence, the Church is claiming the same authority as Christ in Matthew 7:29: 'For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes' (ie as an authoritative source, not merely as an interpreter). If the Church has completely changed its mind on important matters of theology and morality (rather than deepening its understanding or changing the application of principles because of changed circumstances) this undermines its claim to such a unique authority.
Of course, much more to be said on both sides here! (Whenever isn't there?) But given the Church does seem clearly to make unique claims about its teaching authority, are those claims to be rejected as simply false (as most non-Catholics would) or can they be interpreted as somehow claiming a unique authority which is compatible with radical discontinuity (even contradiction) in teaching? In rejecting both of those possibilities, the supporters of a hermeneutic of continuity are accepting the unique claims of the Church to teaching authoritatively, and understanding that to mean that the Church does not change its teaching even when it deepens it.
Further reading:
Cardinal Newman: An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine. (Link here.)
Daniel Lattier: 'The orthodox rejection of doctrinal development' (link here). (The Eastern Orthodox Churches (unlike the Catholic Church) are commonly held to reject any idea of the development of doctrine (rather than simply its preservation). The author argues that in fact there is an acceptance of some forms of development in Eastern Orthodoxy and that Newman's own understanding of development is compatible with these.)
Pascendi Dominici Gregis: Pius X's condemnation of Modernism (which includes condemnation of the idea of doctrine's evolution). (link here).
No comments:
Post a Comment